What to know about Utah’s special session over changing state constitution

The Utah Legislature is meeting for a special session Wednesday to determine if they will put a constitutional amendment on voters’ November ballot.
The amendment says that lawmakers have the ability to amend or veto laws that originated as ballot initiatives.
Lawmakers do not have much time remaining if they would like this amendment to appear on the ballot. County clerks start mailing out ballots on Oct. 15, but ballots need to be finalized by Sept. 3.
Wednesday is the final interim day scheduled before this deadline.
If two-thirds of lawmakers advance the constitutional amendment on Wednesday, Utah voters will see it on their November ballots. Here is a closer look at what the amendment does (and does not) say and what people on both sides of the amendment have said about it.
The proposal to amend the Utah Constitution is sponsored by Sen. Kirk A. Cullimore, R-Draper, and Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher, R-South Jordan.
The following text would be added to the state constitution if the resolution passes and voters approve it.
The amendment would take effect on Jan. 1, 2025, if two-thirds of the Legislature advances it and voters pass it.
The amendment explicitly grants lawmakers in the state the ability to make changes to or repeal laws that started as initiatives. Amendments are common in the lawmaking process, which is what legislators have said is one of the primary reasons for making this part of the state constitution.
If passed, the amendment would also prevent foreign entities from using money or other means to support or oppose citizen-led initiatives.
The amendment does not prevent citizens from passing initiatives. Nothing changes about the process of citizens proposing initiatives if the amendment passes.
The reason behind the proposal of this amendment is a Utah Supreme Court decision allowing a lawsuit over redistricting to move forward, the court included language that said when citizens pass initiatives, those initiatives are protected from “unfettered legislative amendment, repeal or replacement.”
The bar to amending laws that originated as initiatives seems to now hinge on a legal test requiring the amendments to address “a compelling government interest.” Others laws, like those passed by the Legislature, do not have to show this kind of interest before they are amended.
The process for Utah citizens getting initiatives on the ballot and then passing them would remain the same way it is right now based on the amendment.
The amendment would explicitly spell out that the Utah Legislature has the power to amend or repeal initiatives. In the past, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have amended initiatives. An example of that is medical marijuana. Senate President Stuart J. Adams, R-Layton, said the law has been amended every session since voters passed it, but the core of it — the legalization of medical marijuana — has remained intact.
Utah majority leadership said they would like to add more time to the referendum process and there is a bill open to do just that. Referendums are different from initiatives, they are the way Utah voters can repeal laws. During the special session, state lawmakers will try to extend the signature gathering period, which would give Utah citizens more time (20 days) to collect signatures.
Utah Senate President Stuart Adams and House Speaker Mike Schultz said they were fighting to preserve the voice of Utahns and to allow the state legislature to make necessary changes to initiatives.
Adam pointed toward an instance where they amended the Better Boundaries initiative since it had an unconstitutional provision in it. He said the group asked for the changes and they made them so the group did not lose their initiative on constitutional grounds. “We’re taking their ideas and making them functional for them,” he said about the Utah Legislature’s track record on amending initiatives.
“This has given the citizens an opportunity to decide if they want the unelected justices to make that decision for them, or if they want to be able to make it for themselves,” said Schultz, R-Hooper, about the proposition of the amendment.
Utah GOP chairman Rob Axson who led an effort to encourage lawmakers to consider an amendment said he thought the court’s ruling was out of line with the principles of a constitutional republic.
“I think the core issue is that in a republic you are electing folks to represent you and they are most closely accountable to the voters while also being positioned to make necessary judgments and adjustments,” said Axson, explaining lawmakers sometimes need to be able to change laws quickly due to circumstances that arise.
The chief growth officer at Sutherland Institute, Derek Monson, said the ruling created uncertainty and an amendment would resolve that. “Now the court is having to decide public policy,” said Monson, predicting the ruling would lead to more litigation around laws. “They’re kind of inserting themselves into a lawmaking role because of how they chose to interpret the Constitution.”
Better Boundaries led an effort on a joint letter to oppose the amendment, saying they thought the amendment would undermine the balances of power.
“Rather than rushing to amend our constitution, we call on you to embrace this ruling as an opportunity to strengthen our democratic processes, and encourage you to work collaboratively with citizens and grassroots organizations through existing channels, and to focus on improving governmental transparency and accountability, which will reduce the need for citizen initiatives,” said the group.
Utah Democratic Party chair Diane Lewis said the amendment was an attempt for Republicans to hold onto power.
“If the Republican supermajority succeeds in putting their anti-Utahn constitutional amendment on the ballot this November, Utahns must turn out to defeat it,” said Lewis in a statement. “We cannot let power-hungry politicians take away our ability to hold them accountable.”
Utah Minority Leader Angela Romero had not seen the text of the amendment by the time of her comments, but expressed concern about giving the Utah Legislature the ability to veto a citizen-driven initiative.
“For truly a citizen legislature, we should be listening to the people of our state,” said Romero, D-Salt Lake City. “And I don’t think a majority of people in Utah would want to do anything that jeopardizes their voice.”
For more reporting on this amendment, see the following articles: